Cowboy Bob Sorensen

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is a bit of wondering and pondering.  Back on Thanksgiving Day (November 26, 2015), my wife and I went out for a visit. When we returned home in the afternoon, we noticed that a smoke alarm was sounding from one of the buildings in the apartment complex. We didn't pay it no nevermind, figuring that someone cooked something a mite too long or spilled gravy on a stove on this heavy cooking day. Image credit: Freeimages.com / Roy White An hour or two later, it was getting dark and I realized that the alarm was still sounding, so I took a walk over to that building. People were moving in but ignoring the alarm, and I did not see any signs of fire, smoke, or other distress. Some time back, I read about a woman who had been murdered in the street and it took twenty minutes for her to die because people drew their blinds and didn't want to get involved. I had resolved not to be like that, and this was such a time. What if there really was a prob

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen To celebrate the fifth annual Question Evolution Day , I thought it would be helpful to revisit a logical fallacy that is often used by the Darwinistas. It should be well understood that science thrives on challenge so that a hypothesis or theory can be revised when unsupported by evidence — or discarded entirely. Unfortunately, evolutionary owlhoots often try to lock away contrary evidence, especially when it points to the Creator. Can't have that, it interferes with naturalistic presuppositions . Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave Among the logical fallacies that anti-creationists employ is the fallacy of exclusion. (For an earlier article with a funny video I did on this subject, click here .) This fallacy has variations and different names, including cherry picking, suppressed evidence, card stacking, incomplete evidence, and more. Many people believe in scum-to-scientist evolution because they are simply not given all the evidence. Making a conjec

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It's kind of fun to give a bit of background information, and I believe that people like some of the personal stuff. Whenever something is submitted for publication, it needs to meet guidelines, and is subject to editing. (Probably the only "pure" way to get your content exactly the way you wrote it is to put it on your own Weblog.) I have thousands of posts and articles on my own Weblogs, but have had only a few published by organizations. Aside from letters to newspaper editors, I think my first publication was in the May 1991 Bible-Science Newsletter (PDF scan available here) , which is now Creation Moments . Surprisingly, that one was published "as is". Other items I wrote for people that were edited, and even had some collaboration, such as at 101 Arguments . My submissions to Michigan Bicyclist Magazine in the late 1990s had a mix, some were edited, one was mostly "as is". Another printed publication was so he

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Most people in the Western world have needed medical treatment several times in their lives, whether an ongoing condition, routine annual physical, or getting cactus spines removed when your horse bucked you off at the worst possible moment. You are given a form to fill out, and that form asks for your sex. Take a look-see at this PDF of a standard (and many times required) claim form. Right up there in box three, there are two check boxes, one for "male", and one for "female". There are no options for how you feel that day, what you claimed to be yesterday, what bathroom you feel like using , or anything like that. Image modified from Clker clipart; people like color, you know. People can rail against the way God made them all they want. They can take hormone supplements, undergo "gender reassignment surgery" (bodily mutilation), play with the politically correct crowd of how you feel that day, dress like the opposite ge